 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow - in addition to Roger F from Intrada, MV Gerhard from La-La Land and Doug F from Intrada have all chimed in on Robin and Perseverance Records now too.
MV Gerhard:
He tried to pull a fast one with CHARMED earlier this year while we were in negotiations with CBS on the damn project. Luckily we stopped the release in its tracks before his bootleg copy got out there.
Fight the good fight, Roger!
MV
Doug F:
Robin Esterhammer's days are numbered. Where he once may have had noble intentions, the soundtrack licensing industry has changed and he has become quite dishonorable. Deplorably so. I look forward to the day his tent folds and will be happy to assist in bringing it down.
--Doug
http://www.intrada.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5686
Things aren't looking good for Perseverance Records.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, someone already posted the link earlier in the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know that, I was adding MV and Doug's comments, which hadn't been posted yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, it wasn't produced for promotional purposes of the composer, as the tray art says, but rather just made as a deal sweetener? That's pretty bad.
Question: How in the world could they have had access to tapes for all this rare stuff in order to make it?
Justin, this promo was produced by Craig Safan who provided his own personal tapes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, why aren't we burning down Craig Safan's house over this, too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
So they ain't GOOD PEOPLE like Lehah says?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Esterhammer just weighed in on this situation over on JWFan:
Guys, I have to weigh in here. I am sick of having to explain and defend my actions, so here they are; straight from the horse's mouth. Once and for all.
Slipstream is NOT a bootleg. I had a licensing deal with the Elmer Bernstein estate that allowed me to manufacture and sell the CD. Unfortunately, as it turned out, they claimed to own the rights to the score's masters in addition to the publishing which turned out not to be true. I had done my due diligence and gotten a license. If someone sells you a car you don't go around asking other people if they own it instead, do you?
Bootlegs: We didn't do Deadly Blessing; that wasn't ours. I wish MV would get his facts straight before accusing me of illegal activities. That is the second time he did that. If he does it again he might find himself in court for libel. I'm serious.
Prophecy I and II: I admit: This one is a gray area; While David Williams and I got the OK from the producer to do the albums, not even he could tell us who owned the masters. The franchise had changed ownership so many times that no one knew who owned the rights. We figured we'd go ahead anyway. Is this something I would still do today? Probably not.
Craig Safan Promo: I did this as a favor for a friend. We are not selling these and are actually losing money on them. It cost us money to produce them, plus we have to give Craig his royalty on top of that. Bootleggers are in it for the money; big money; bootleggers don't pay royalties. I pay royalties on ALL my releases, commercial or promo.
Chinatown and Edge of Darkness: These are legitimate commercial releases. I have licenses for both. The reason why they don't say the film title on the cover is that the production companies (Paramount and GK Films, respectively) didn't want the albums to be associated with the films in question. So, we had to come up with a different title. In the case of Edge of Darkness, we weren't even allowed to reference the movie at all in the package. In both cases the composer came up with the alternate title.
Rain Man: Hans didn't actually want to stop this release (I don't know where you got that information); he merely wasn't interested in releasing the score. We already had a deal with MGM and put a lot of money in the project, so we decided to go ahead with it. Again, I probably wouldn't do this today.
Expanded Re-issues: The reason why Witches of Eastwick wasn't expanded was that we thought the music on the original WB album was already the best representation of the score. If you know the rest of the music you'll find that it is the same thing over and over again. That's why John Williams released it that way originally. We don't think there needs to be every single note from a score on a CD for a good listening experience, but that's just our opinion. If you don't agree, don't buy the album. Nobody is forcing you to. Furthermore, whereas the album is owned by one entity (WEA), the additional music is controlled by another one (Warner Bros Films); to license anything additional would have cost us considerably more money, and we wouldn't have been able to pass a fair price on to you. Also, more legalities would be involved.
Newsletter Emails: I am sorry you think they look amateurish. You are, however, the first ones to complain about this. No one else has so far, at least not to me. We are in the process of re-designing our Web site, however, and we hope you'll like the outcome.
In closing: I am not a bootlegger or someone who engages in illegal business practices because it makes my life easier. I wish people would stop saying I am.
Robin Esterhammer
<Robin@PerseveranceRecords.com>
http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23206&p=921426
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefancos wins that thread over there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 24, 2013 - 10:47 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
I'm tempted to go to that JWFan thread and start knocking some heads together, but I know thats the only kind of smarts they'd get in that thread.
Let us get something straight: there are two issues at stake here and they're not necessarily connected.
The first is the legality of a thing - in this case, an album. I own a book on music rights. It sits on my shelf, half read and I don't plan on picking it up ever again. So I don't know how this stuff works and won't presume a "right and wrong".
The second issue is bruised egos. And I don't mean that in an unkind way - everyone has one and we all take knocks in life. Shit happens. And we, the consumer are seeing this aired out in public.
I have nothing but sympathy for Robin, MV and Doug in this situation. Its obvious that two of these people feel wronged and Robin is doing his own thing. And I get that there is certainly a level of professionalism involved in every industry, and in every job for that matter.
I will not praise nor damn either side in this. Lets be honest with ourselves: we have no horse in this race. Koray, who started that thread and master of the most inane interview questions I've ever head in my life, seems to be filled to the eyes with Red Sox Syndrome: more interested in the other team losing than his own team winning. He doesn't want to build up, only break something down. You find these types everywhere and they tend to be subtle, but like that line in Open Range, "you'll hear a man's bad intentions if you let him speak".
That said, I am not one who puts his self-worth and identity into a soundtrack label. I'm a consumer, not an acolyte to a cause or banner. And I'm sure that the people we're talking about wrap themselves in a paycheck and not a flag. They're here to provide and we're here to take.
And while I do abhor bootlegging, none of us (not even I) were throwing stones when SAE sold expensive, bootlegged copies of King Kong Lives... so our supposed collective morality is a slippery slope. We target opportunity with impunity.
All of it, right and wrong, is sour grapes, folks. From every side. Choose your champions, but best to leave the righteous indignation at the door.
Because lets face it - if this situation was anything like its being painted as, do you think these composers would be showing up for Robin's CD signing on Sunday? Prooooooooooooooobably not.
I'll chalk it up to another case of Occam's Duct Tape and figure this is all yet another non-issue.
As always, your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EVERYBODY was selling those things we aren't allowed to mention back then. Not just SAE. Everybody! Including Intrada, who has a dog in this fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lehah, you have confused Koray Savas with Kaya Savas. Two different people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And it's very much not classy to be airing out that dirty laundry and threatening to number another label's days; not classy from any company. Roger, Doug, even MV. MV has a point on "Charmed" which Robin didn't address in that above quote.
But Robin is not without innocense either. I've heard this before: a label can't find whom own the rights something since it's changed hands so many times. So, they do research for years to find out. They don't just shrug their shoulders and go ahead.
And I'm sorry, despite Robin's claim of due diligence, you can't just take a composer's estate at their word, you have to check with the studio. And I'm pretty sure -- I'll wait for another label to chime in -- that if you use images from a film, even poster art, you have to gets rights and permission and sign off from the studio, so he would have had to contact them anyway. Of course "Slipstream" is a boot. If somebody sells you a car and it turns out it wasn't their car, you don't say you did your due diligence and say that the person said the car belonged to them.
And before every label casts the first stone, let's remember the passed of some of the label heads, which isn't always so clean in of itself. You all built up your reputation over time, so why can't necessarily Robin? Do we need reminders of whom traded in bootlegs? Do we need reminders SAE used to sell promos and boots? And other things; some are not generally known.
And if Robin wants to be a big man, he'll apologize for anything he really did do wrong, like "Slipstream", like "Charmed". EDIT: Upon further comments later in the thread in regards to "Charmed", I now redact "charmed"; it appears the answer lies inbtween Robin and MV's comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 24, 2013 - 11:20 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thedood
(Member)
|
I'm tempted to go to that JWFan thread and start knocking some heads together, but I know thats the only kind of smarts they'd get in that thread.
Let us get something straight: there are two issues at stake here and they're not necessarily connected.
The first is the legality of a thing - in this case, an album. I own a book on music rights. It sits on my shelf, half read and I don't plan on picking it up ever again. So I don't know how this stuff works and won't presume a "right and wrong".
The second issue is bruised egos. And I don't mean that in an unkind way - everyone has one and we all take knocks in life. Shit happens. And we, the consumer are seeing this aired out in public.
I have nothing but sympathy for Robin, MV and Doug in this situation. Its obvious that two of these people feel wronged and Robin is doing his own thing. And I get that there is certainly a level of professionalism involved in every industry, and in every job for that matter.
I will not praise nor damn either side in this. Lets be honest with ourselves: we have no horse in this race. Koray, who started that thread and master of the most inane interview questions I've ever head in my life, seems to be filled to the eyes with Red Sox Syndrome: more interested in the other team losing than his own team winning. He doesn't want to build up, only break something down. You find these types everywhere and they tend to be subtle, but like that line in Open Range, "you'll hear a man's bad intentions if you let him speak".
That said, I am not one who puts his self-worth and identity into a soundtrack label. I'm a consumer, not an acolyte to a cause or banner. And I'm sure that the people we're talking about wrap themselves in a paycheck and not a flag. They're here to provide and we're here to take.
And while I do abhor bootlegging, none of us (not even I) were throwing stones when SAE sold expensive, bootlegged copies of King Kong Lives... so our supposed collective morality is a slippery slope. We target opportunity with impunity.
All of it, right and wrong, is sour grapes, folks. From every side. Choose your champions, but best to leave the righteous indignation at the door.
Because lets face it - if this situation was anything like its being painted as, do you think these composers would be showing up for Robin's CD signing on Sunday? Prooooooooooooooobably not.
I'll chalk it up to another case of Occam's Duct Tape and figure this is all yet another non-issue.
As always, your mileage may vary.
Good post Lehah.
Some points of observation on this whole issue:
Perseverance appears to be an easy target for bigger labels. I can understand why nobody likes them. They put out products that other labels may have wanted to do. Nobody likes competition and in the soundtrack label world it seems there are a bunch of competitors for a limited, finite fanbase.
If Perseverance is putting out bootlegs like Doug and MV claim, why haven't they been sued into the ground yet? Weird how a "bootleg" label who is most likely registered to do business in California, the home of the entertainment industry, is not out of business and gone by now. Even weirder is how Robin continues to release stuff. If he's so evil, why would ANYBODY in our tight little community work with him. Robin has claimed time and time again he pays his obligations and I believe him or else he'd be out of business or homeless.
MV mentions this Charmed release. I never saw a Perseverance release for that particular title. Why is it that this supposed bootlegger, Robin, didn't just release it then? He did not it appears so is MV just piling onto the guy or is he annoyed that Robin made apparent inquiries into doing this album? I understand a label's frustration with a competitor chasing after stuff they want to put out, but c'mon, alleging somebody was planning to do a bootleg is a bit extreme.
Doug calls Robin "dishonest". Seems libelous to me but let's examine that some more. What was he dishonest about? Seems to me he's pretty upfront about his releases and where they come from in his new release alerts. Seems to me he makes his fair share of mistakes. Dishonest seems harsh. If he was dishonest why haven't we heard any horror stories from composers who have worked with him in the past?
Why is it that this Safan promo is a big deal to Doug and Roger? They've done promo giveaways with purchase in the past? As a fan of film scores myself, I was a lucky beneficiary of the Core. Why is it okay for one to do it but not another? Is this a case of Perseverance being an easy target?
Craig Safan appears to have been paid and signed off on this release. I find it ironic that Roger keeps ducking the argument that somehow only Robin is the villain here.
I just find it entertaining that so many of these guys snipe at each other so often. It's amusing to think that this starts to look more and more like competitors trying to hurt each other than it is a community of fans.
Do I like all the Perseverance releases? Not all, some. I do appreciate what they've been doing of late with reissues of Warner music stuff and keeping the prices down. I just do not understand how people keep calling him a bootlegger and dishonest criminal when he has shown nothing of the sort. People do make mistakes. Unfortunately for him, he's made a few but out of how many overall releases is how I judge somebody. Like a quarterback in football, I may throw 30-40 passes a game but not all are going to be caught and some will be intercepted, does not mean I am awful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 24, 2013 - 11:21 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thedood
(Member)
|
And it's very much not classy to be airing out that dirty laundry and threatening to number another label's days; not classy from any company. Roger, Doug, even MV. MV has a point on "Charmed" which Robin didn't address in that above quote.
But Robin is not without innocense either. I've heard this before: a label can't find whom own the rights something since it's changed hands so many times. So, they do research for years to find out. They don't just shrug their shoulders and go ahead.
And I'm sorry, despite Robin's claim of due diligence, you can't just take a composer's estate at their word, you have to check with the studio. And I'm pretty sure -- I'll wait for another label to chime in -- that if you use images from a film, even poster art, you have to gets rights and permission and sign off from the studio, so he would have had to contact them anyway. OF course "Slipstream" is a boot. If somebody sells you a car and it turns out it wasn't their car, you don't say you did your due diligence and say that the person said the car belonged to them.
And before every label casts the first stone, let's remember the passed of some of the label heads, which isn't always so clean in of itself. You all built up your reputation over time, so why can't necessarily Robin? Do we need reminders of whom traded in bootlegs? Do we need reminders SAE used to sell promos and boots? And other things; some are not generally known.
And if Robin wants to be a big man, he'll apologize for anything he really did do wrong, like "Slipstream", like "Charmed",
It's not a boot if you paid royalties. Bootleggers do not pay anybody but themselves. I see that as a serious error in judgment. Not enough to condemn him as a bootlegger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 24, 2013 - 11:23 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thedood
(Member)
|
And it's very much not classy to be airing out that dirty laundry and threatening to number another label's days; not classy from any company. Roger, Doug, even MV. MV has a point on "Charmed" which Robin didn't address in that above quote.
But Robin is not without innocense either. I've heard this before: a label can't find whom own the rights something since it's changed hands so many times. So, they do research for years to find out. They don't just shrug their shoulders and go ahead.
And I'm sorry, despite Robin's claim of due diligence, you can't just take a composer's estate at their word, you have to check with the studio. And I'm pretty sure -- I'll wait for another label to chime in -- that if you use images from a film, even poster art, you have to gets rights and permission and sign off from the studio, so he would have had to contact them anyway. OF course "Slipstream" is a boot. If somebody sells you a car and it turns out it wasn't their car, you don't say you did your due diligence and say that the person said the car belonged to them.
And before every label casts the first stone, let's remember the passed of some of the label heads, which isn't always so clean in of itself. You all built up your reputation over time, so why can't necessarily Robin? Do we need reminders of whom traded in bootlegs? Do we need reminders SAE used to sell promos and boots? And other things; some are not generally known.
And if Robin wants to be a big man, he'll apologize for anything he really did do wrong, like "Slipstream", like "Charmed",
I don't understand. Where is this Charmed boot everybody keeps pointing to? MV says he tried to release something yet nothing came out. That's like asking Iraqis to apologize for Saddam Hussein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand. Where is this Charmed boot everybody keeps pointing to? MV says he tried to release something yet nothing came out. That's like asking Iraqis to apologize for Saddam Hussein.
As MB said:
"He tried to pull a fast one with CHARMED earlier this year while we were in negotiations with CBS on the damn project. Luckily we stopped the release in its tracks before his bootleg copy got out there.
Fight the good fight, Roger!
MV"
In early 2012 PR had announced the title, put up the artwork and tracklisting. They had to cancel it:
"December 11, 2012
Charmed Album Officially Canceled
Sorry, folks, but it's official. CBS just doesn't want to work with us. The composer is now trying to shop the album around to other labels. I'll keep you posted."
It's likely a bootleg if MV had the rights and.or were the ones in negociation. I don't know of a studio that negociates the rights to one title, to two labels at the same time. Either one gets it or not. Both LLLR and PR were not going to be releasing this at once. One either has the rights or not.
Maybe MV can clear it up a little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And it's very much not classy to be airing out that dirty laundry and threatening to number another label's days; not classy from any company. Roger, Doug, even MV. MV has a point on "Charmed" which Robin didn't address in that above quote.
But Robin is not without innocense either. I've heard this before: a label can't find whom own the rights something since it's changed hands so many times. So, they do research for years to find out. They don't just shrug their shoulders and go ahead.
And I'm sorry, despite Robin's claim of due diligence, you can't just take a composer's estate at their word, you have to check with the studio. And I'm pretty sure -- I'll wait for another label to chime in -- that if you use images from a film, even poster art, you have to gets rights and permission and sign off from the studio, so he would have had to contact them anyway. OF course "Slipstream" is a boot. If somebody sells you a car and it turns out it wasn't their car, you don't say you did your due diligence and say that the person said the car belonged to them.
And before every label casts the first stone, let's remember the passed of some of the label heads, which isn't always so clean in of itself. You all built up your reputation over time, so why can't necessarily Robin? Do we need reminders of whom traded in bootlegs? Do we need reminders SAE used to sell promos and boots? And other things; some are not generally known.
And if Robin wants to be a big man, he'll apologize for anything he really did do wrong, like "Slipstream", like "Charmed",
I don't understand. Where is this Charmed boot everybody keeps pointing to? MV says he tried to release something yet nothing came out. That's like asking Iraqis to apologize for Saddam Hussein.
Right here:
http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=89088&forumID=1&archive=0
CBS blocked the release before he got it out.
Fuck you very much 
MV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a boot if you paid royalties. Bootleggers do not pay anybody but themselves. I see that as a serious error in judgment. Not enough to condemn him as a bootlegger.
Are you refering to "Slipstream"? He didn't get the rights from the rights holder. It's not a lawful release. If you steal a used car from a dealership, but pay the bank the money owed, you still have a hot car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
